Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this amendment proposal, which addresses one of the main issues of the last federal election.
On the one hand, the government considers its reform as the best in the world and is completely insensitive to the plight of the unemployed.
On the other hand, while looking to reduce payroll taxes as much as possible, the Progressive Conservative Party does not expect, with this amendment, that the system could be improved in an effort to bring the employment insurance plan back down to human proportions by meeting a number of requirements.
If we read closely, this amendment means that, in the year 2000, the premium rate will be reduced by 80 cents per $100 of earnings. Should we go for it and adopt this amendment, we would effectively close the debate on possible improvements to the system in the interests of those who, as unemployed workers, benefit from it, and the Bloc Quebecois will not stand for that.
The position put forward by the Bloc Quebecois during the campaign, which we feel is, all in all, the most balanced, is that the employment insurance premium rates could be reduced by a reasonable yet substantial amount.
We note with interest that the government accepted the suggestion we made at the first meeting of the committee, which all party leaders attended, that the reduction should be at least equal to the amount by which contributions to the Canada pension plan increase in order to partly offset this increase.
There is something else that you should also reduce because you can afford to. There is a surplus in the EI fund, which is literally overflowing, a surplus that makes no sense and is only used to solve deficit management problems at the expense of workers and employers.
We therefore feel that premiums should be cut significantly. The Bloc thinks that premiums should be cut not only by the current 20 cents but perhaps by something like 40 cents so some money will go back into the economy and into employees' and employers' pockets. However, we should keep the option of improving the conditions of the plan open. The amendment before us would not do that. Worse, it would make it impossible to do so, because if contributions are reduced to a point where there is no more manoeuvring room, we will be asking workers to agree to live with the existing plan for the next few years when they lose their jobs.
In the latest federal election, if one message was sent to the government and to the opposition parties, it was that the people living in regions with high unemployment do not want the plan that turns workers into cheap labour. The former Minister of Human Resources Development said they profited by the system. This minister got the message from the NDP member here. The people gave the clear message that they did not want what the Liberals had done to the employment insurance plan based on the model the Conservatives had set up. They want something that will distribute wealth. The government talks about fighting poverty and giving more money to poor children, but most poor children have poor parents.
One of the best ways for the federal government to reduce poverty is to put money back into society. The unemployment insurance plan was not set up just to impress the unemployed. It was set up to avoid a repetition of the depression of the 1930s by distributing wealth among the people. The people creating the wealth—woodworkers, peat producers, fishers—all keep the economy moving. They often work in sectors offering only seasonal work.
Our society and our country must recognize the need to assure workers in these sectors of a decent living if we want to sustain these economic sectors.
The proposal on the table, which in part deals with the necessity of decreasing contributions, goes much too far in ensuring that there is money left in the system to improve the conditions of the unemployed. The Liberal Government must not, under any circumstances, be handed the perfect excuse to say that Parliament has passed an 80 cent decrease, so nothing more can be done for the people concerned.
Basically, this proposal sort of closes the circle. The Conservatives undertook unemployment insurance reform some seven or eight years ago. The Liberals came into power announcing they would change all that, but they went even further than the Conservatives.
It was very surprising, and I recall it because I was in Montreal at the time, three or four years ago, to see 30,000 people demonstrating on a day when it was 30 degrees below zero. The demonstration was attended by federal Liberal MPs then in office who marched with us to show that the Conservative reform made no sense.
The day after the Liberals came to power, they continued along that path with a vengeance. And now they are being told by the voters that there is no way they can talk out of both sides of their mouths like this.
A clear message must be given to the Liberal government: unemployment insurance must be changed so that the fund can be properly monitored, allowing premiums to be at a level that would yield a reasonable surplus so as to improve the conditions of the unemployed.
The Conservatives' proposal is along the same lines as the Mulroney government's reform, that is to level the situation of workers as much as possible so that they will be increasingly available to work as cheaply as possible. Doing so is following along the same lines as in the United States where unemployment insurance is at 50%.
In Canada, we have gone from 65 to 55 and someone affected by the rule under which for every 20 weeks used a person will lose 1% of benefits, will have the dubious pleasure of getting down to the U.S. level.
This is not a choice we want to make. I do not think it can be the choice of a society like Quebec. It cannot be the choice of a society like Canada. We must take care not to end up with our hands tied behind our backs preventing us from improving the conditions of our unemployed. The necessary leeway must be there, and that is why we are going to vote against this amendment.